I see that according to tvgameshows.net, GSN will air eight episodes of "Two for the Money" during the Black & White Overnight hour during Thanksgiving week.

Scroll down for the article:

http://tvgameshows.net/

Does anyone know if the Sam Levenson / Ed McMahon show had a cigarette sponsor and therefore won't be airing?

If it does have a cigarette sponsor, they'll probably edit it out. From what I've seen, GSN is willing to edit out cigarette sponsors for tributes and other special airings, just not for shows that are on the schedule regularly.

Not that they should have to be edited out at all.
IIRC, Old Gold cigarettes sponsored the entire run.

And considering the source, the Perfesser claims that only one Levenson show is still extant.

But he also says that "Two for the Money" was on NBC for its entire run--nope. After its first year it moved to CBS when Old Gold wanted that Tuesday night time slot cleared for the notorious "Judge for Yourself," with Fred Allen, the man Old Gold and G-T first wanted for "Two." When he became ill a month or two before the premiere, they gave the job to Shriner. And while Shriner proved to be successful, Old Gold still wanted a vehicle for Allen. Thus came "Judge."

Can a TV station in Winston-Salem or Raleigh actually say the name of their city on the air?

With the cigarette absurdity nowadays, they would probably leave it in, but just bleep it out.

WHOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Right back at ya! That didn't go over my head...I knew exactly what he was saying...

It'd be easy to edit if the show just had "billboard" ads at the beginning of the show, but Herb Shriner used to give cartons of Old Gold to the contestants and the Old Gold name was prominent on the set.

I used to love his comments when he handed out the cartons. "I know you'll enjoy smoking those." Which today translates loosely to "I know you'll enjoy developing an addiction that will eventually lead to cancer and death." :)

But not much can beat when Garry Moore gave a kid a carton of Winstons on IGAS (to give to his dad, of course).

Actual happening Dept.:

Shortly after the tobacco ad ban started on TV, ABC showed a bowling tournament from Winston-Salem. All Chris Schenkel did was say "We're coming to you from the beautiful hills of North Carolina for this Carolina Open..."

Things have eased up since then. After all, Winston Cup racing did get its recognition until the cancersticks finally pulled their sponsorship.

The GSN press release on Two for the Money is out. I've seen a few episodes of the show and wasn't impressed. An obvious You Bet Your Life knockoff, and pretty forgettable. Herb Shriner's aw-shucks act gets old fast for me. But the show lasted five years, so somebody must have liked it.

The release also mentions the Thanksgiving marathon of Amazing Race. Despite that exposure, Amazing Race is really getting cut back. Next week (Sunday 11/13 through Saturday 11/20) the show will only get six hours on the network, admittedly prime time. I assume the numbers have dwindled considerably since its debut, as the overall prime time averages for September would suggest.

The release is unclear whether any Sam Levenson eps will be shown. It does say "never-before repeated" which I'm presuming means never before on GSN. They have shown episodes up to at least the summer of 54, so these would have to be later, if the press release is totally accurate.

NITPICK: The release also says the show features three contestants answering questions in three rounds. Wouldn't that make it "Three for the Money"?

Well, I see Steve Beverly's replacement is ready and able. If you want to report news; report news. If you want to editoralize, editoralize.

It seems to me that Casey was both reporting and editorializing, and as long as he's not confusing one with the other, it's perfectly legitimate to do both in the same post.

Well, being a knockoff of You Bet Your Life really shouldn't be considered a "knock" against it. Using a flimsy game as an excuse to showcase a comic's talents was a tried-and-true subgenre of the day. And of that lot, 2ftM probably had a better game than most. But sure, the popularity of those shows didn't ride on the game, it rode on the appeal of the host.

The fact that Tom Brokaw says 2ftM was rigged (as a teen, he was a contestant) is the most interesting part of its history to me, since it was a G-T show and they managed to avoid getting into any trouble during the scandals.

This is quite possibly the oddest and most surprising attack on a totally harmless post that I have ever seen.

Considering the source, are you really that surprised?

Three couples. The couples are what made it "Two For the Money." But it's been obvious before that Cindy Ronzoni doesn't watch what she writes about.

And yeah, it's a homespun "You Bet Your Life," but the game is stronger than it has to be and wasn't just a straight quiz. I'm surprised that G-T didn't try to come to back to it to make it a more straightforward game (or maybe they did, since the structure of the "Password '75" Lightning Round has similarities to "TFTM"'s game structure).

Matter of taste about the host. Shriner was hardly the worst, but down-home, aw-shucks types just don't work well for me. They seem a little phony to me in a way Groucho never did.

As for the gameplay, it was an afterthought to what was mostly a vehicle for Shriner's monologues and interviews. I sort of remember that Brokaw comment, but didn't he later retreat and say the show only advised contestants to brush up on current events and personalities? Anybody who watched the show could have figured that out.

Anyway, it's hard to understand why they would bother to rig the game. Prizes were small and the gameplay was hardly the most important thing in the show.

And I have to laugh about Mr. Odor's comment on editorializing. Google rustled up some of his NASCAR stuff, and it's real heavy on mixing the editorial and the factual. For instance, this post mixes fact and editorial comment freely (see item #4 for a classic example).

Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say. I liked Mark's blend of fact and comment in his NASCAR articles, though I'm completely clueless about stock car racing. For instance, I have no idea if the fact about Kurt Busch not getting suspended is correct, or if the editorial comment on his erratic racing is justified.

I just don't know why Mark gets upset when other people do the same thing with game shows.

You couldn't have chosen a worse article to complain about my editoralizing. The article was the follow-up to a January "prediction" list. This article is results of said predictions.

Without delving off-topic in regards to NASCAR (thanks for giving Henke a wet pair of trousers by mentioning NASCAR), #4 is completely true, if you were to go back and view races from that year.

Furthermore, long time readers of the site know that 95% of my articles are editorals, save for when I cover a race weekend.

Thanks for playing; I'm through discussing this.

Really? Among many other editorial comments in the article:

1) Cal Wells' program is hopeless.

2) Johnny Benson's termination was unjustified.

3) Kurt Busch drives erratically.

4) The "lucky dog" pass is absurd.

5) Sterling Marlin's season was mediocre at best.

6) The "non-playoff" point system is the worst.

As I said, I don't know anything about NASCAR, so I don't know if these editorial comments are justified. My guess is that at least some NASCAR fans would disagree with some or all of them. For instance, this post from "Dave" disagrees strongly with some other editorial comments you made about NASCAR.

I do know that you mix your editorialing freely with factual comments about top ten finishes, Kurt Busch not getting suspended, Ken Schrader getting a sponsor, etc.

Which is fine with me. I don't have any problems with people mixing fact and comment. I just don't know why you should.

So I lied about this being my last post. I couldn't help but laugh at the inanity of your post. You don't know anything about NASCAR, yet you think these comments are biased. I'd disprove you on the board to make you look like the village idiot; but seeing how NASCAR has nothing to do with game shows, I won't.

Name me one newspaper editoralist, or one sports writer who doesn't have some fan disagree with him.

Said poster also sent me an email. I seem to recall he was a bit off the deep end.

Because, I've been paid to write some of these articles?

Thanks for completely agreeing with me. You mix in lots of editorial comments with the facts in your NASCAR articles. Other people can and do disagree with your editorializing.

So what's the problem when other people on this board mix fact and opinion about game shows?

Thank you so much for sidestepping the fact that said "comments" are actually factual as well. But, you don't see farther than the side panel of your cubicle.

You have long been known for starting arguments on multiple forums, which you accomplish when you "report" and "editoralize". Glad to see that hasn't changed. This time I am through discussing this, as I've made 2,772 posts here, and would like to be able make post 2,773.

So...about "Two for the Money"...is anyone else glad to see the change in shows?

Hey, my opinions about Two for the Money are factual, too! So nobody can disagree with them!

Come on. I've got no problems with your opinions about NASCAR, game shows, astronomy, belly-button lint, whatever. Just don't pretend those opinions are "facts." That sort of reasoning is not exactly persuasive.

So I'm a liar for the second time today. I didn't want to drag this completely off topic, but you didn't leave me much of a choice, since you made the decision to call me out. I would have emailed you, but I'm at work right now; and don't have access to the account I use for my writing.


This team has national backing by one of Proctor & Gamble's major brands; Tide. In 2004, this team finished 34th in the standings, with 0 finishes in the top 10. This year, they've missed 3 races (his driver has "bought" a ride for some of the races he missed), and they have 1 top 10 finish. 1 top 10 finish in 67 starts (1.49%), only two teams perform poorer than them.

2002 season: 29 starts, 2 wins, 8 top 5, 14 top 10 (29/36 starts due to injury)
2003 season: 36 starts, 0 wins, 0 top 5, 11 top 10, 18th in final standings
2004 season: 36 starts, 0 wins, 3 top 5, 7 top 10, 21st in final standings.

Looks like a steady, steady decline to me.

And now, that Brian has gone to the laundromat; we return you to your regularly schedule game show discussion (though I request this topic be locked in the hope that it doesn't get drug further off topic).

I've got no problem with the topic being locked, either. Though I'm sure there are fans of Sterling Martin, Kurt Busch, and, yes, even the Cal Wells team who would disagree with Mark's opinions.

And that's all, folks. Mark will continue to mix fact and opinion in his comments, and so will I, and so will many other people on this board. We'll leave it at that.

Enough.